Random Thoughts From One Crooked Cr. Float

[Al Agnew]

As I reported in the road trip post, I floated Crooked Creek for the first time from Snow to Kelly's on Wednesday. I'd been on the creek a few times just wading, but I'd always read about this stream. As most probably know, Crooked has had the reputation of producing a lot of big smallmouth for many years. It probably started when the White River trout guides and outfitters wanted to offer a nearby float for smallmouth, and talked up the virtues of Crooked Creek, and the story just perpetuated. But there is no doubt that Crooked Creek has always produced some big fish. So...is it still as good as it's reputation?

It was quite clear on Wednesday, and fairly low. One note on that water level...the USGS gauge on CC, at Kelly's Slab, is not accurate as to the flow in cubic feet per second. The gauge reading Wednesday was dropping from 170 to 165 cfs, but I know what 170 cfs looks like, and the creek wasn't flowing anywhere near that. I'd guess it was flowing between 70 and 80 cfs, maybe as much as 90 cfs, but no more than that.

But the low, clear water meant I could see a lot of the fish. There were certainly a lot of nice fish in that creek, but I saw only one that I was sure was over 20 inches, and one more that might have reached 20. Now that doesn't mean much because big fish can certainly hide in low, clear water, but when you compare the number of bigger fish I saw to the numbers on some of the other premier big smallie streams I've been on, it was similar but no better.

The other thing I noted was that the Crooked Creek fish were typically long and lean. You still hear all the time about that creek producing fish over five pounds, but I'd like to see just one of those supposed five pounders weighed. The 19 incher I caught probably wouldn't have weighed three pounds.

Which brings up a question. Given CC's restrictive limits, with only two fish allowed to be kept, it certainly seems the creek has a lot of fish. But does it possibly have too many for them to put on pounds?

So I'm not sure whether CC deserves it's shining reputation. It's a great creek, but I don't think it's head and shoulders above a lot of other streams of comparable size in the Ozarks.

One thing was certain, though...those CC fish are powerful. I was continually amazed at how strong the 14 inch plus fish were. I hooked several fish in the 16 inch class that would have broken my eight pound test line had I not had the drag set properly.

One of the things I really paid attention to was the habitat, and especially the amount of gravel in the creek, since there has been controversy over whether to allow more gravel mining in CC. In the past there has been extensive gravel mining in some stretches. Well, I can say that compared to many Ozark streams, CC does NOT have an overabundance of gravel in the Snow to Kelly's stretch. Many, if not most, of the pools had bedrock bottoms. There were stretches that were wide and shallow over gravel, but they weren't all that common.

And one thing I thought about was, perhaps CC could actually use a little more gravel and smaller rocks in some areas. I've been on many Ozark streams, and some have a lot of gravel. On most MO Ozark streams, you'll seldom encounter solid rock bottoms. The gravel beds are deep, and bluff pools are typically rock rubble on the bluff side, the deepest part in the middle where the gravel meets the rocks, and then nothing but gravel from there to the other side. CC bluff pools typically had a little rock rubble on the bluff side, and scattered big boulders sitting on solid rock out to the middle, with maybe some gravel sitting on the bedrock near the other bank. In streams with deep gravel beds, floods scour out deep pools in the gravel, and going from head to tail, the pool will often be deep where the strong current from the riffle enters it, gradually shallowing out as you go downstream, or else staying deep until fairly close to the riffle, where gravel bottom rises into the riffle. But on streams with solid rock bottoms, floods don't scour deep holes in the bedrock, and actually many pools are formed by gravel and rubble "dams" that pile up to form the riffles. Perhaps if it had a little more gravel, CC would have higher "dams" and deeper pools. But one thing is certain...removing gravel is not going to make those bedrock pools any deeper.

I suspect that some of the filling in of pools that has happened on CC is not due to excess gravel, but to the widening of the channel due either to former gravel mining or to removal of tree cover along the riparian corridor. Ever notice that whenever you have one of those treeless cut banks along an Ozark stream, there is nearly always a big gravel bar on the other bank, and usually a wider than normal channel between the cut bank and the higher alluvial bank on the other side? Whenever you have a bank being eaten away by floods, you'll have a widening channel, and the wider the channel the less power the water has to continually move gravel out of it.

The other thing that causes a lot of shallowing is simply long, straight stretches of the stream. A straight stretch has a more uniform current in high water, and the current is less able to scour out gravel. Sometimes former gravel mining results in straighter channels, although I don't know whether this was the case in this stretch of CC. And still another cause is the entrance of a tributary. Tributaries that dump large amounts of gravel fill in the sections of stream immediately below.

At any rate, the dynamics of gravel in Ozark streams are complex, but after visiting CC I definitely believe that removing gravel from it would NOT result in deeper pools.

You won't find a more classic Arkansas smallmouth stream than CC. The big bluffs of the Buffalo are mostly missing, and the rocky rapids of the Mulberry and Big Piney Creek are mostly lacking, but the clear water flowing through gorgeous green pools studded with big boulders just shouts "smallmouth". It's a great stream, and one I plan on coming back to soon.

[Greasy B]

With the nearby white river fishing guide / angling tourist industry I think the creek gets pounded by more knowledgeable and effective fishermen. Dispite most of these fishers practicing C&R I'm sure they effect the quality of SMB.

[Ham]

I have not fished CC as much as I should have, but I've always maintained that it's reputation as one of the best smallmouth rivers in the country is hyperbole. It iS NOT head shoulders above other streams in Arkansas and nearby Missouri. I know that streams on the East coast produce bigger and most likely almost as many smallies. I can only dream about what some streams in Wisconsin or Minnesota or Maine or Vermont hide.

My guess is that genetics due to thousands of years of natural selection favors the long lean look and the average size smallie we have. I might greatly favor the >14 inch deep body fish, but apparently environmental forces do not. One of those environment Dorset is the catch and keep angler and the accidental mortality for C&R anglers.

[dbaltz]

The removal of gravel does increase the amoun of sediment clogging the gravel beds needed for nests. These sediments also increase the production of oxygen depleting vegetation.

[gotmuddy]

I have caught some hogs out of CC and some lean fish. I think the fish HAVE to be lean because the creek gets so low. CC holds a special place for me, even though I have not fished it this year. The southfork I believe has as good of fishing as CC but with .01% of the pressure.

[dbaltz]

South Fork? where?

[Ham]

The southfork I believe has as good of fishing as CC but with .01% of the pressure.

Keep it up and you might change that.

[dbaltz]

Were all friends here, and respectful fishermen.

[Justin Spencer]

Can you gig the south fork?

(just kidding)

[dbaltz]

Oh yeah let me get my truck full of nets, trot lines, and car bateries!